Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini are not biologists. Fodor is a leading philosopher of mind and cognitive scientist, best known for his ideas about the modularity of mind and language of thought; Piattelli-Palmarini is a cognitive scientist. They do not have new data, new theory, close acquaintance with the everyday practice of evolutionary investigations, or any interest in supplying alternative explanations of evolutionary phenomena. Instead, they wield philosophical tools to locate a “conceptual fault line” in contemporary Darwinism. Apparently unshaken by withering criticism of Fodor’s earlier writings about evolutionary theory, they write with complete assurance, confident that their limited understanding of biology suffices for their critical purpose. The resulting argument is doubly flawed: it is biologically irrelevant and philosophically confused.

For the fun of it? But that aside, all theories ought to be questioned, for the mental exercise if nothing else. On a personal level, I've always very wilfully refused to entertain the idea that something as marvelous as mankind--me, of course--rose from slime. Why not? If the theory's true, my wilful disbelief will affect it not one whit.

For the fun of it? But that aside, all theories ought to be questioned, for the mental exercise if nothing else. On a personal level, I've always very wilfully refused to entertain the idea that something as marvelous as mankind--me, of course--rose from slime. Why not? If the theory's true, my wilful disbelief will affect it not one whit.

Isn't the natural world enough? I'm perfectly happy with the world as it is without having to invent some supernatural "cause." Isn't it enough to be alive on this wonderful beautiful planet? I can't understand why so many are living for the next life instead of making the most of this one.

Science is always examining evidence and questioning it's assumptions. It has changed many times in the past and will change in the future. In contrast, religious dogma ignores evidence to support it's worldview without change.

I get upset when politicized religious groups try to mandate their wrongheaded views of science in the schools. In this economy we can't afford a generation of science illiterates. There's nothing funny about it.

ad hominem |ˈad ˈhämənəm|
adverb & adjective
1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
• attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain : vicious ad hominem attacks.
2 relating to or associated with a particular person : [as adv. ] the office was created ad hominem for Fenton. | [as adj. ] an ad hominem response.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: Latin, literally ‘to the person.’

Yes, this is getting silly. Were I to say that you are a narrow minded materialist or a politicized scientist, that would be an ad hominem argument. To say that such people exist is not. To say that all materialists are narrow minded or to say that all scientists are politicized would be as foolish as to imply that all religious people are.

Mmmm! I guess I did imply some supernatural cause for mankind, didn't I?
But, hey, you know, it's a possibility, isn't it? Perhaps, like Pope, we should all await the great teacher death and then we may--oops, another possibility--know the answer.

Myself, I can never forget that science and its method leads to answers that have great probability--answers for the nonce, sort of. Don't you find it kind of difficult, when you really consider it, believing the brain that earned you a degree (in biology or genetics, I assume?) originated in soup, a directionless, unfeeling, unthinking, segment of protein?

Mmmm! I guess I did imply some supernatural cause for mankind, didn't I?
But, hey, you know, it's a possibility, isn't it? Perhaps, like Pope, we should all await the great teacher death and then we may--oops, another possibility--know the answer.

Myself, I can never forget that science and its method leads to answers that have great probability--answers for the nonce, sort of. Don't you find it kind of difficult, when you really consider it, believing the brain that earned you a degree (in biology or genetics, I assume?) originated in soup, a directionless, unfeeling, unthinking, segment of protein?

Don't I, regardless, have the right to question anything I want to?

And JaneO was right: Your argument was ad hominem; hers was not.

I don't have a problem with having risen from the primordial soup. I think that makes our lives rare and incredibly precious. I'm content not being a part of some deity's grand plan.

Isn't nature wonderful and interesting enough without having to invent an invisible man in the sky to "explain" what our limited imaginations can't understand.

Every scientific discovery in history has replaced "magic" with a natural explanation. While science will never have all of the answers, great progress is being made lighting the darkness.

I think that what upsets many people is that these discoveries have removed man from the "center of the universe." We originally thought the sun, planets and stars circled the earth. It was all about us. Now we know we circle just one of billions of stars in our galaxy. Our galaxy is just one of billions in the observable universe.